No, I didn't think so._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

What is your point exactly? The map merely shows below average temperatures for most of the continental US and above average for the south east and Alaska for a limited time period. It neither proves nor disproves anything about global climate change.

What is your point exactly? The map merely shows below average temperatures for most of the continental US and above average for the south east and Alaska for a limited time period. It neither proves nor disproves anything about global climate change.

'...... A Massive Engineered Winter Chemical Cool-Down Assault On The US Population Is Coming

The latest NOAA long term forecast map below should be alarming to any that take the time to examine it closely. The latest theatrically named "winter storm" from power structure owned "The Weather Channel" was "Winter Storm Fortis". This engineered event pushed warmer than average moisture from the Atlantic Ocean over northern parts of New England where many regions saw chemically nucleated snow fall (facilitated by geoengineering jet aircraft dispersions of materials over precipitation zones) at far above freezing temperatures. "Winter Storm Gregory" will be named as part of the engineered winter scenario I am outlining in this article. Alaska, the Arctic, and parts of Florida are forecasted (scheduled) to remain at, or return to, record warmth. The arctic as a whole remains in a meltdown scenario while weather whiplash continues in the US and countless other locations around the globe. Engineering winter has long since been business as usual in many countries.

44g

The projected (scheduled) record cold zone for much of the US comes after the warmest autumn in the US since record keeping began.

When endothermic reacting (toxic) ice nucleating materials are utilized on a massive scale for climate intervention/modification programs, convection is greatly impacted, too many condensation nuclei are present, and precipitation is generally greatly reduced (from what it would have otherwise been) in the core of the engineered chemical cool-down zones. The NOAA precipitation forecast (scheduled weather) map below is for the same window of time as the NOAA map above. It is not hard to recognize that the regions scheduled to get the greatest percentage of above normal precipitation are also generally the regions that are scheduled to experience the greatest above normal temperatures ("A" refers to above normal precipitation on the NOAA maps, "B" is below normal).

44d

In the NOAA map above we should ask this, how does moisture flowing in from the Pacific migrate directly over the Western States with far below normal precipitation? Then, as the moisture continues to flow east (further from the epicenter of the engineered cool-down zone), precipitation transitions to above normal. Why aren't NOAA and NWS personnel speaking out? An illegal federal gag order has been placed on them on all NOAA and NWS employees.

Global temperature deviations in the Average Temperature Anomaly map below tell the bigger picture story. The extremely blotchy composition of hot and cold zones should be alarming to us all. Though the planet is descending into a state of total meltdown, the climate engineers continue to attempt radical (and highly toxic) chemical/biological ice nucleation cool-downs anywhere and everywhere that conditions will permit this process to be carried out. NASA has also long since been a part of the ice nucleation experimentation, some of the elements utilized for this purpose are synthesized urea, and E-coli.

44a

The weather modification chemical cool-downs create a cold, dense (but shallow) layer of air that settles down to the surface and lowers temperatures on the ground. This process is essential for the manipulation of climate perspectives. The engineered winter events are used to create and expand division and confusion in the population in regard to the true state of the global climate.

Massive air mass manipulation is also accomplished with engineered high and low pressure zones. The use of ionosphere heater facilities like HAARP are the a primary factor with this type of manipulation.

Meteorologists at The Weather Channel have already admitted to the highly unusual weather pattern that is helping to facilitate the coming abnormal cool-down on a rapidly warming world. High pressure ridges will remain locked anomalously in place on both sides of the North American continent. This configuration will assist with robbing what cold air there is in the Arctic, and will push this air south in an almost perfect outline that will cover the land mass of the lower 48 states.

The ability the climate engineers now have to manipulate Earth's life support systems is far beyond alarming. Geoengineering is nothing short of weather warfare.

Again, how do flows of moisture coming from the west off of record warm global oceans create temperatures that are predicted (scheduled) to be nearly 40 degrees below normal in regions only slightly inland? What is the final product of the the climate engineering chemically ice nucleated cool-down for the US? Radically lowered engineered temperatures at ground level in parts of the US will accompany the start to the new year. The US media will hype and dramatize this completely engineered cool-down. This will obscure the previous climate headlines of the warmest autum on record in the US and also the fact that 2016 will be the warmest year yet recorded on planet Earth since record keeping began. We will soon see if the climate enigneers are actually able to achieve the level and duration of cooldown that they are attempting to carry out. ....'

But I would have thought just seeing such anomalies would be enough to realise 'something stinks in the State of Denmark'...._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

The dramatic melting of Arctic ice is already driving extreme weather that affects hundreds of millions of people across North America, Europe and Asia, leading climate scientists have told the Guardian.

Severe “snowmageddon” winters are now strongly linked to soaring polar temperatures, say researchers, with deadly summer heatwaves and torrential floods also probably linked. The scientists now fear the Arctic meltdown has kickstarted abrupt changes in the planet’s swirling atmosphere, bringing extreme weather in heavily populated areas to the boil.

The northern ice cap has been shrinking since the 1970s, with global warming driving the loss of about three-quarters of its volume so far. But the recent heat in the Arctic has shocked scientists, with temperatures 33C above average in parts of the Russian Arctic and 20C higher in some other places.

In November, ice levels hit a record low, and we are now in “uncharted territory”, said Prof Jennifer Francis, an Arctic climate expert at Rutgers University in the US, who first became interested in the region when she sailed through it on a round-the-world trip in the 1980s.

“These rapid changes in the Arctic are affecting weather patterns where you live right now,” she said. “In the past you have had natural variations like El Niño, but they have never happened before in combination with this very warm Arctic, so it is a whole new ball game.

“It is inconceivable that this ridiculously warm Arctic would not have an impact on weather patterns in the middle latitudes further south, where so many people live.

“It’s safe to say [the hot Arctic] is going to have a big impact, but it’s hard to say exactly how big right now. But we are going to have a lot of very interesting weather – we’re not going to get around that one.”.....'

Nothing happening here, folks; get back to the footie and 'Britains Got Talent'. Pass the bottle, Paddy!_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Thank you, Outsider. I. Would take some persuading to be convinced that climate manipulation (that I accept happens) is sufficient to explain the scale of the phenomenon being observed. That we are undergoing massive changes is also in my view incontestable. Isn't the big question: what is the appropriate policy response?

Thank you, Outsider. I. Would take some persuading to be convinced that climate manipulation (that I accept happens) is sufficient to explain the scale of the phenomenon being observed. That we are undergoing massive changes is also in my view incontestable. Isn't the big question: what is the appropriate policy response?

Regarding persuasion, I'm certainly not in the best position to do that. I suggest you read through some of the back articles in Geoengineering Watch. Dane Wiggington may come across as a 'Doom and Gloom' old-style preacher man, but his info is pukka, makes sense to me, anyhow.
Then read the USAF Military Document 'Owning the Weather in 2025.
Watch 'Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meghan, Hauppauge, NY, January 18th, 2014':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA , a short but hard-hitting 21 minute video.

And start to 'Look Up'; start to notice strange anomalies, like multiple equi-distant parallel lines which frequently become apparent at certain times in the day, mainly mornings and evenings. In reality they are there all the time, but only become apparent when the sun is in certain positions and highlights them. They are not, of course, as bright as newly formed Chemtrails, which show whatever the sun's position.
I have counted around thirty at a time, which indicates to me a deliberate spreading by military or military contracted spraying aircraft, working to computer guided routes.
And strange 120* turns (even close to 90* occasionally).
And of course there are a whole mess of patents for all the spray equiptment to deliver the aerosol sprays.

As for the 'Isn't the big question: what is the appropriate policy response?', it obviously has to be exposure of what these Luciferian a**holes are doing to us and the planet._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'....Government deception, media deception, climate science mass omission, and an unfortunately large percentage of populations that are generally more interested in fueling their own ideology than finding facts. Record high US stock market numbers are accompanied by massive layoffs, what's wrong with this picture? It has recently again been over 50 degrees colder in the lower 48 states than at the North Pole, how can that be? Global shipping is crashing, ship building contractors are laying off, but the US military can still afford 126 Billion dollar submarines. More recent earthquakes in Japan may have further accelerated the massive Fukushima radiation releases, is this why the US EPA is trying to secretly raise the "safe limits" of radiation in our water supplies to levels that are 10,000 times higher than the already far too high limits? Power structure propaganda stories about Russian hacking remain as dubious as ever and were officially retracted by some sources, but the damage is done and most US citizens have already been deceived. In the meantime, global forests continue to die and the biosphere as a whole continues to crash, what's next? The latest issue of Global Alert News is below.....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'ExxonMobil has knowingly misled the public for decades about the danger climate change poses to a warming world and the oil giant’s long-term viability, according to a peer-reviewed study.

An analysis of nearly 200 documents spanning decades found that four-fifths of scientific studies and internal memos acknowledged global warming was real and caused by humans.

At the same time a similar proportion of hundreds of paid editorials in major US newspapers over the same period cast deep doubt on these widely accepted facts.

The study also cites ExxonMobil calculations that capping global warming at under 2C – the goal enshrined in the landmark Paris climate accord – would impose sharp limits on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned, and thus potentially affect the firm’s growth.

Both findings are relevant to ongoing investigations by state and federal attorneys general, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on whether the company deceived investors on how it accounts for climate change risk.

The new study was published on Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Earlier reporting by InsideClimate News unearthed the internal documents and came to much the same conclusion.

In response, the company – the largest oil producer in the United States, with revenue of $218bn last year – denied having led a four-decade disinformation campaign........'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

According to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:

Quote:

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.

So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.

Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.
During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.

We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)
Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?

In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.

In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.

Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.

There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.

The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!
In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.
Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.

Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).
For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen, The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague.
-end-

I see; we can pump and spray noxious pollutants into the atmosphere (to give perspective, the atmosphere in scaled-down terms is like a paint layer on a basketball), yet moderates the UVA,B & C and other frequencies (in other words what allows for any kind of life on earth).
We (puny humanity) couldn't POSSIBLY screw that up, could we???
Ask the bees, whales, butterflies, ladybirds, birds, all the rapidly extinct and going extinct species.
Ask the indigenous people, if you can find any; they know the answer to working with nature, and what occurs when you don't.
Think of the Sahara, Egypt, Pacific Islands; denuded of trees for 'grandiose schemes' (Pyramids, statues) and now largely wastelands._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

More info to follow!_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Whether or not climate sceptic blog readers are more/less likely to believe in conspiracy theories than the general public, is not my point. It is whether this paper, with this data, actually show it…

The title was very provocative, despite only 3 people â€˜believing; the title (an anon internet survey) Even if you ignore the all criticism of the paper entirely, and take it at face value– 99.7% of people that read those climate blogs did NOT believe in the moon conspiracy.. and had very low numbers for Diana, Aids and other conspiracies. In fact lower % believing conspiracies than the general public.

There were years worth of blog battles about this, including Lewandowsky own blog, but letâ€™s put that to one side.

Some social scientist did have a look at it, and used it as an example (amongst others) of what is wrong with social psychology.

"The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact. Out of over 1,145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked. Among the 134 participants that 'rejected climate science" only THREE people 2% endorsed the moon landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exists in the sample."

"...The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers" – Jussim

98% of climate skeptics did not believe the Moon Landing was a hoax. Latent variable modeling masked the invalidity of the titular implication that climate skeptics tend to believe in silly conspiracy theories. The invalidity of this conclusion cannot be found in the structural equation model results; it can, however, be found in the simple distribution of responses. In the sample of 1145, only ten participants endorsed the moon-landing hoax. Of the 134 who believed climate science was a hoax, only three endorsed the moon-landing hoax (on a four-point scale of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree, we are treating both â€œagreeâ€ and â€œstrongly agreeâ€ responses as agreement). Thus, almost no one, including those who rejected climate science, believed the moon landing was a hoax. The abstract reported that â€œEndorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.â€ However, only 16 participants in their sample of 1145 rejected the fact that HIV causes AIDS, and only 11 participants rejected the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. There were 176 free market endorsers in their sample. Nine of them rejected the HIV–AIDS link, and seven of them rejected the smoking–lung cancer link. Thus, 95% and 96% of free market endorsers agreed with those scientific facts. The structural equation modeling performed was a sophisticated set of analyses (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). Interpretations of such analyses as evidence that climate skeptics believe in silly conspiracy theories conflate the sign of the correlational results with participants' actual placement on the items. â€œ

There is no evidence here that people who believe global warming is a hoax were also more likely to believe the moon landing was faked. Also, these data are so skewed, and have so few response options, that it is not clear that the type of structural equation models used in the original report are appropriate.

but too few people actually believed in hoaxes to warrant reaching any conclusions about them. Similar patterns occurred for the other conspiracy beliefs

"...Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the studyâ€™s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.

While the authorsâ€™ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of of the problems within social psychology." – Quillete

Social psychologist Dr Jose Duarte's wrote a less tactful criticism of the Nasa faked the moon landing paper, prior to the above papers (he is a co-author on Leeâ€™s papers above) It is well worth a read to get how shocked how bad he thought the paper was.

â€œTherefore, the title is false. That's a big problem. (We shouldn't decompose those 10 people, and I do so only out of illustrative necessity – the title would be nuts even if the majority of the 10 believed climate science was a hoax.) The title is not only false, it declares the opposite relationship suggested by the authors' trivial data for it. If the authors meant to say something about moon hoaxism based those 10 people, a more accurate title, given their data, would be: "NASA Faked the Moon Landing–Therefore (Climate) Science is Reliable."

The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach.

That should be enough to retract – it was just made up. No scientist should ever get away with that, with just making stuff up under the banner of science. But there's more...â€

In 2012, the paper had lot's of media coverage, not surprising sceptics made lots of critical comments, which prompted Prof Lewandowsky to amend his ethics approval and research the responses of his critics, for a paper called Recursive Fury, this had lots of complaints, mainly ethical and was retracted.Â A new paper was then published called Recurrent Fury. Â (but those two papers stories are even longer)

TonyGosling wrote:

By email
Winchester University Diana death study
- massaging the data to show false results
- suggesting people who believe Diana was murdered
- are incoherent and even crazy?

Hi Tony

Here is the dataset from Dr Michael Wood. I've also attached his paper.

And, I also wondered how psychology undergraduates compared with general public.

And with reference to one of your other papers there might be a hypothesis to why sometimes a 'conspiracy theorist' label are damaging and some not. Because of relative belief amongst the general public. If say 40-50% of public think Diana conspiracy at least plausible even if not believe it likely themselves, then not against the public opinion, and not damaging to be called a conspiracy theorist.

Whereas someone saying the moon landing (or 911, chemtrails, fluoride, etc) was a conspiracy – the label â€˜conspiracy theoristsâ€™ sticks as damaging, because those people in the public view are obviously nuts (ie a very low % of public believe that conspiracy, or that it is remotely plausible)

There is a danger of course, random members of public when presented with question like these may be casually responding in a manner of that it is plausible, but not an actual belief.

So your paper, which has a 7 point scale might suggest a 7 would be a very strong believer in a conspiracy, vs someone answering with a 5 as a â€˜plausibleâ€™. Exit interviews would help of course, sometime people tick the wrong box, or think they canâ€™t put all 4s, etc,etc

Please find attached the study materials, as requested (Study 1 on pages 1-3, Study 2 on pages 4-5). There was also a consent form attached but I donâ€™t have a copy handy at the moment. The wording was fairly generic, in any case, and didnâ€™t have any specific instructions for answering the questions.

Would it be possible for you to supply me with the material provided to the students in Study 1 and Study 2, ie the actual questionnaire as shown to the students in Study 1, any advice given to both sets of students and the Bin Laden articles mentioned in the paper. As these materials may, or may not support a possibility I am considering to include in my response.

The actual responses to Study 1 and Study 2 would also be very useful.

Best Regards and thanks in advance

Barry Woods

University of Winchester, a private charitable company limited by guarantee in England and Wales number 5969256.
Registered Office: Sparkford Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO22 4NR
175th Signature

Could be a nice little earner if you are on the inside and know what the Chemtrailers and HAARP have on the menu for us._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Do any 'skeptics' have an explanation for the spherical ice balls?_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Simple explanations from ordinary folk._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Give me 'simple minded' folk any day over the 'Experts'.
These people are mostly mothers; they know the dangers their kids are in, and are doing something about it, not sitting back and 'having an opinion' about it.

Ever wondered how difficult it is to get a device to accurately measure UVC?
Well, it could be that according to the 'Experts', PTB and their stooges the MSM etc., no UVC should get through the upper atmosphere.
But it has been shown to do so in California, and I'm sure it does in many more places, especially Australia and similar latitudes._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'...In little more than a century of frenzied fossil-fuel burning, we humans have altered our planet’s atmosphere at a rate dozens of times faster than natural climate change. Carbon dioxide is now more than 100 ppm higher than any direct measurements from Antarctic ice cores over the past 800,000 years, and probably significantly higher than anything the planet has experienced for at least 15 million years. That includes eras when Earth was largely ice-free.

Not only are carbon dioxide levels rising each year, they are accelerating. Carbon dioxide is climbing at twice the pace it was 50 years ago. Even the increases are increasing.

That’s happening for several reasons, most important of which is that we’re still burning a larger amount of fossil fuels each year. Last year, humanity emitted the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions in history — even after factoring in the expansion of renewable energy. At the same time, the world’s most important carbon sinks — our forests — are dying, and therefore losing their ability to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and store it safely in the soil. The combination of these effects means we are losing ground, and fast....'

'...As climate scientists continue to warn about the global consequences of rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases—such as more intense and frequent extreme weather events—the Trump administration has pursued a multi-pronged anti-science agenda that includes rolling back regulations that aim to limit emissions and blocking future research....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

I would say, highly likely it was the US with Chemtrails and HAARP.
Syria also had a bad drought before the 2011 mercenary-backed armed insurrection began._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM). The sun's radiance will be lessened as it was during
the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. But how do we explain weird weather like record heat and droughts?

The magnetosphere of the sun and the earth is reduced. This allows the Jet Stream to wander about giving
us all strange weather patterns, such as, pushing warm air from the Caribbean in your direction. However,
there is another more serious problem. The reduced magnetosphere allows more cosmic rays to strike the
earth. This has been correlated with increased volcanic activity and earthquakes. In 1816 we had a "Year
without a summer" because a volcano in Indonesia sent so much ash into the air that it blocked sunlight

in the northern hemisphere in 1816. If that happened today, we would lose two billion or more people due
to decreased food production. I would recommend buying seeds to sprout indoors in apartments. If you
have land, I would recommend greenhouses. Also for droughts you need to read up on Mycorrhizal fungi.
They take water and nutrients from some distance away to your plant's roots in exchange for sugars the
plant produces in photosynthesis. Dr Elaine Ingham once said that a leaf in a 100 foot tall tree (30.5 meters)
can send a signal down to the tree's roots for calcium. An exchange is made, sugar for calcium. And the

calcium is sent up to the leaf. The 200 foot round trip takes 90 seconds. The point is that using a plough to
farm disturbs the soil and kills the fungi. You cannot afford to kill fungi in a drought. No Till farming is growing

in popularity around the world.

I wrote previously about the US entering WW I with the stated goal of prolonging the war in order to bankrupt
Britain, France and Russia. This was according to Lamont Thompson, a business partner of J P Morgan.
He made the statement at a public meeting of businessmen in Philadelphia in 1915 according to the
book America's 60 Families written by Ferdinand Lundberg.

'...Dr. Peter Wadhams is a world-renowned expert who has been studying Arctic sea ice for decades.

His prognosis for the Arctic sea ice is grim: He says it is in its “death spiral.”

“Multi-year ice is now much less than 10 percent of the area of the ice cover; it was 60 percent or more before 2000,” Dr. Wadhams told Truthout. “[Sea ice] extent in summer is down to 50 percent of its value in the 1980s.”

Dr. Wadhams, who is also the President of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Ocean (IAPSO), noted that this primary feedback loop is much further along than most of us realize.

“I see the summer sea ice disappearing by the early 2020s,” Wadhams said. He noted that the change of albedo (a measure of reflection of solar radiation) due to the loss of sea ice and snowline retreat across the Arctic “is sufficient to add 50 percent to the warming effect of CO2 emissions alone.”

Alarmingly, on August 21, Arctic scientists told The Guardian that the oldest and strongest sea ice in the Arctic had broken up for the first time in recorded history. One of them described the event as “scary,” in part because it occurred off the north coast of Greenland, which is normally frozen year-round. The region has long been believed to be “the last ice area”: It was thought, at least until now, to be the final place that would hold out against the melting impacts from an increasingly warmer planet....'

'..Dr. Leifer warned that as these processes continue and the Arctic continues to heat up faster than the tropics, the pole-equator temperature difference that controls our weather and causes three major weather circulation “cells” — tropical, mid-latitude, and arctic — will merge into a single weather cell. A similar merging of weather cells occurred during the time of the dinosaurs....'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Is Climate Change Really Man Made? Bristol Uni Climate Science Dr takes on sceptic Piers Corbyn
Series: Bristol Broadband Co-operative
Subtitle: Two strong advocates on different sides of the Man-Made Climate Change debate
Program Type: Weekly Program
Featured Speakers/Commentators:
Contributor: Bristol Broadband Co-operative [Contact Contributor]
Broadcast Restrictions: No excerpting/modifying without permission.
License: Attribution No Derivatives (by-nd)
Broadcast Advisory: No Advisories - program content screened and verified.
Summary:
Credits: Piers and Jo have a rigorous discussion about the strength of evidence for man made-climate change. They range around almost all related subjects such as polar ice cap cooling, the effect of sunspots, pre-industrial changes of weather, lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, historic changes in levels of CO2, as well as the knock-on effects of US president Donald Trump pulling out of the November 2016 Paris Climate accords.
Rarely do two so strong advocates on the different sides of the Man-Made Climate Change debate cover so much ground in so much detail, helping the listener, we hope, to make up their own mind based on a broad spread of opinions on one of the most vital policy issues affecting our world today.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum